Conventionally, medical procedures such as, but not limited to, fluoroscopy procedures and/or radiation therapies are carried out over one or a successive series of treatment sessions. For radiation therapies, high-energy photons and/or electrons are carefully directed and/or focused from an ex vivo radiation source so that they travel into a targeted treatment area in a patient's body. The size, shape, and position of the treatment area (typically where a tumor is or was) as well as its anatomical location in the body and its proximity to sensitive normal tissues are considered when generating a particular patient's treatment plan. That is, the treatment is planned so as to deliver a suitably high dose of radiation to the tumor or targeted tissue while minimizing the dose to nearby sensitive tissue that typically cannot be completely avoided. Directing radiation into non-affected regions may produce undesired side effects particularly as it relates to tissue that may be sensitive to certain dosages of radiation. Unfortunately, even when the patient plan is carefully constructed to account for the location of the cancerous tissue and the sensitive non-affected regions, even small errors in set-up due to beam angle or patient position during delivery of the radiation therapy can inadvertently misdirect radiation into those regions or can influence the dose amount that is actually received by the targeted tissue. Further, the demand for radiation treatment equipment is typically relatively high and this demand may limit the set-up time allowed or allocated in the treatment room between patients.
Similarly, during fluoroscopic procedures, particularly prolonged interventional procedures and/or over multiple procedures, a patient can be subjected to high radiation exposures. The radiation dose depends on the type of procedure, the size of the patient, the protocol employed and other factors. Management of patient exposure is desirable. See Mahadevappa Mahesh, Fluoroscopy: Patient Radiation Exposure Issues, RadioGraphics, 21 (4):1033-1045 (2001).
In the past, implantable devices for oncology applications have been proposed to evaluate the radiation dose amount received in vivo at the tumor site. See, e.g., U.S. Pat. No. 6,402,689 to Scarantino et al., the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference herein. Measuring the radiation at the tumor site in vivo can provide improved estimates of doses received. However, for certain tumor types or situations, including certain fluoroscopic procedures, one or more skin-mounted or external surface radiation dosimeters may be desirable and sufficient for clinical purposes.
Conventional external or skin-mounted radiation dosimeter systems use semiconductor circuitry and lead wires that power/operate the dosimeters. These types of dosimeters are available from Scandatronics and/or IBA (“Ion Beam Applications”) having an international headquarters location in Belgium. While these radiation dosimeter systems may provide radiation dose estimations, they can, unfortunately, be relatively expensive. Further, these types of dosimeters are used for a plurality of patients potentially raising sterility or cleanliness problems between patients. Conventional dosimeter systems may also require substantial technician time before and during the radiation session. For example, conventional dosimeter systems need to be calibrated before the radiation session may begin. In addition, the lead wires can be cumbersome to connect to the patients and may require excessive set-up time, as the technician has to connect the lead wires to run from the patient to the monitoring system and then store the lead wire bundle between patient treatment sessions. Therefore, technicians do not always take the time to use this type of system, and no confirmation estimate of the actual radiation delivered is obtained.
Other radiation sensors include thermo-luminescent detectors (TLD's). However, while TLD detectors do not require wires during operation, they are analyzed using a spectrophotometer (that may be located in an offsite laboratory) and are not conducive to real-time readings.
In view of the foregoing there remains a need for improved economical and easy to use radiation dosimeters.